IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing
RFC 4311

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Margaret Cullen) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-29 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Review comment:

There's one minor nit in
that the [ROUTERSEL] reference needs updating, but that can be resolved by
RFC editor or during AUTH48. 

Regards,
Mary H. Barnes
mary.barnes@nortel.com

(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Comments from the Ops directorate by Pekka Savola (Mar 30 17:47:13 PST 2005):

Basically a good document.  Two medium-level comments:

 - [ROUTERSEL] should probably be a Normative reference, as the doc
appears to be referring/depending on that behaviour.  The draft in
question is past the IESG, in AD followup so it shouldn't be an issue.

 - Introduction says,

"It is typically desirable when there is more than one equivalent
router that hosts distribute their outgoing traffic among these
routers.  This shares the load among multiple routers and provides
better performance for the host's traffic."

  I would s/typically/often/, because whether this is really typical
or not is in the eye of the beholder, and I doubt there's any real
measurement of the desired behaviour out there.

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) (was Discuss) No Objection